Staunton, September 8 – Many in the West have failed to see that “the main goal” of hybrid war is to change not the rules that govern conflict but rather the borders that have existed between states “and not necessarily those on the map” but those of effective control by either another state or other external forces, according to Kirill Sazonov.

When this is understood, Sazonov says, it becomes clear that “Russia’s aggression in Ukraine” is a war against the West more generally. If Russia wins in Ukraine, then it will move on to others and it will involve real victims. Today, “Warsaw and Cracow are not Donetsk and Luhansk.,” but tomorrow they could be if Russia’s hybrid war is not stopped.

Tragically, many will not understand this is happening even as it does, he continues, because “at first hybrid war creates not an alternative reality or new borders but an alternative picture. Formally, there is no war and no military aggression. There are only internal conflicts, political struggles, a crisis in administration and cases of armed resistance.”

At first, “there is no aggression or aggressor; there are only concerned neighbors and freedom of speech and conscience and an effort by the bureaucracy to bring the rules of the game into correspondence with the real situation.” But the bureaucracy will fail because “it is too conservative and thus becomes the unwitting ally of a creative aggressor with new instruments.”

Over time, the problems Ukraine faces now will be the problems Europe and the West will face in the future.As long as Moscow has to fight in Ukraine, “everything will be well” in the West. But if Ukraine fails, then “the problem will become yours,” with millions of refugees flowing out of that country into Europe.

That is how hybrid war is conducted, and today “Russia is carrying out its hybrid war not against Ukraine but against the EU and the US, that is, against the democratic world as a whole. This is really a conflict of worldviews and scenarios of social development,” one that Russia has launched because it has “lost the economic competition.”

Since it can’t use economic means to project power and since over war would produce an immediate reaction, Russia under Putin has chosen “other methods” including bribery, subversion, manipulation, and exploitation of ethnic and religious differences, having exacerbated them by promoting migration.

The Kremlin is able to do this because “the contemporary world [is] tied together by thousands of threats of horizontal connections” and thus “hybrid war concerns everyone.” The aggressor, in this case Russia, wants to live no worse than others or more precisely wants to ensure that no one lives better than it does.

Its “goal is the creation of a zone of instability and threats large enough to force the West to agree to negotiations and concessions, serious concessions, such as the recognition of Russia’s right to dictate the rules of life for countries which in the Kremlin are considered part of its zone of influence.”

If it achieves that, Moscow will demand even more, including being treated as “an equal or senior partner” in negotiations about the entire world.” Of course, it will sometimes make tactical concessions itself but these will be only tactical and temporary. They will not change the strategy.

“The experience of such operations from Soviet times is enormous,” Sazonov says; “but now the Russian Federation has made a serious step from local operations to a long-term project that is unified in the single scenario” of hybrid war.Having chosen dictatorship and reliance on raw materials alone, Moscow sees no other alternative.

Sazonov says that Russia’s worldwide hybrid war involves the following elements: propaganda, “the creation of internal conflicts with the help of its own agents of influence,” terror both via the support of internal groups and the introduction of outsiders, economic pressure by weakening the economies of target states, political pressure by isolating its targets one way or another, and the creation of conflicts that Moscow can use to justify intervention.

Moscow views ethnic and religious divisions as the most useful because “one can support them for a very long time with the least expenditure of resources.”Moreover, its support for this or that group can be presented to the naïve as part of “a struggle for peace and the resolution of conflicts,” even those it has “artificially created on its own.”

Moscow doesn’t need a powerful technologically developed army. It does need forces to insert near the end, “but the key tasks are fulfilled by intelligence services, diversionists, recruited agents of influence and media under its control.”And it can count on recruiting those politicians who might without such outside support have no chance of gaining power.Faced with this general threat from hybrid war, what should Western countries do?The best thing is not to have or to eliminate those weak places that Moscow may exploit.That means, Sazonov says, that “the aggressor -- even a potential one-- must be deprived of the smallest chance of financing political parties, social organization and media.”

Moreover, the West must recognize that it faces a common threat and meet it with a united front against what the Kremlin is trying to do.And it must understand that helping those countries like Ukraine which are now on the front line is “not charity but an investment” in the defense of the West.

“If we together do not stop the Kremlin in Ukraine, Sazonov concludes, “[the West without Ukraine] will have to stop it in Poland, in Lithuanian, and everywhere” when Russia orchestrates a new refugee flow into Europe and when the enemy will truly and traditionally be “at the border.”

Staunton, September 8 – Because incomes in Moscow and St. Petersburg were higher to begin with, residents of the two Russian capitals until recently had been able to absorb the impact of the economic crisis better than the other and poorer regions, one reason why there have been fewer economic protests in the politically sensitive capitals than on the periphery.

But a new ROMIR survey shows that the economic crisis is not hitting the relatively well-off not only in the provinces but in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and if that trend continues, it could trigger the kind of protests at the center that the Kremlin might have far more difficulty in coping with or might try to use a new foreign adventure to head off.

The ROMIR survey found that Russians in the country as a whole are spending two percent less now than they did four years ago and that the greatest decline over the summer has taken place in Moscow and St. Petersburg rather than in the provinces or in the capitals of federal subjects (romir.ru/studies/823_1473195600/).

In a commentary on the Svobnaya press portal today entitled “The Crisis has Come to the Capitals,” Aleksey Golyakov says that the ROMIR survey’s finding that the largest reductions in consumer spending over the last month – some ten percent -- occurred in the Central Federal District (svpressa.ru/society/article/156022/).

“Moreover,” he writes, “for the first time in many years the number of Muscovites who say they are reducing their daily expenditures has risen significantly.” They report that they have cut back daily spending over the last month by 4.7 percent. In St. Petersburg, that figure was even higher – 5.3 percent.

Such cutbacks have been characteristic of residents of other Russian cities with more than a million residents, while those who live in smaller cities (those with fewer than 500,000 residents) cut back less in August, largely because they had cut back more than Muscovites or Petersburgers already.

Leonty Byzov, a senior scholar at the Moscow Institute of Sociology, says that these results show that even in the capitals Russians are beginning to recognize that things aren’t good and that the current crisis is not like the one of 2008-2009 and will not be solved without a radical change of course.

Until now, he continues, residents of the capitals didn’t feel this way because their higher incomes had provided them with a cushion; but that is rapidly disappearing. Society is still “demoralized” and doesn’t know what to do, he suggests, although as the crisis hits ever more people, some may decide to act.

One idea that is being floated in Moscow to address this situation is to print more money, but that will only produce more inflation, Nikolay Troshin of the Moscow Institute for Strategic Research says.Only genuine economic growth can lift the population back up; pumping up incomes via inflation without any other changes won’t.

Staunton, September 8 – The Russian justice ministry has prepared two draft laws that would reintroduce the use of forced labor for periods of two months up to five years as an alternative form of criminal punishment.By not incarcerating convicts, the state would save money on prisons. And it would even earn some money from the work of those convicted of crimes.

The Meduza portal reports that the draft measures would require an individual to live in a corrections center and work where he or she was told for two months to up to five years. Five to 20 percent of their pay would go to the state, and convicts would also repay victims and the state for their keep (meduza.io/cards/v-rossii-skoro-poyavyatsya-prinuditelnye-raboty-chto-eto).

The draft suggests that this form of punishment will be “much softer” than in a general regime colony because the prisoners will only be under supervision rather than under guard and because they will not have to wear prison clothes. Moreover, those who have served more than a third of their sentences with good behavior supposedly will be able to live where they please.

The draft also specifies that no law will specify that such forced labor be used in lieu of imprisonment. That will be up to judges, and it remains unclear how they will decide on this “softer” and for the state simultaneously less expensive and more profitable form of criminal punishment.

There is only one real problem, the Meduza portal points out. The Russian Constitution prohibits forced labor, but Russian labor law does allow it as an exception if it is the result of a court decision and takes place under government supervision. But the real reason for this innovation is about saving the government money and maybe even earning it a little.

From Laos, U.S. President Barack Obama denounced Donald Trump as unfit to be the American commander-in-chief, after the Republican presidential candidate said Russian President Vladimir Putin has been more of a leader than Obama. "I do not think the guy's qualified to be president of the United States and every time he speaks, that opinion is confirmed," Obama said in what was an unusually caustic comment about the U.S. presidential contest while he was traveling overseas.WATCH: Obama responds to reporter's question about Trump Late Wednesday, Trump said at a nationally televised candidate forum that Putin "far more than our president has been a leader" and that U.S. military generals have been "reduced to rubble" under Obama. Obama, at the end of his last presidential trip to Asia, said as president, "You actually have to know what you are talking about and you actually have to have done your homework. When you speak, it should actually reflect thought-out policy you can implement." Obama, who staunchly supports Trump's Democraticopponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said, "The most important thing for the public and the press is to just listen to what he says and follow up and ask questions to what appear to be either contradictory or uninformed or outright wacky ideas." 'Very good relationship' with Putin During the NBC News forum Wednesday in which Trump was interviewed separately from Clinton, Trump said he thinks if he is elected and succeeds Obama as president he would have a "very good relationship with Putin." He said Russia and the United States have a joint interest in defeating Islamic State jihadists. "Russia wants to defeat ISIS as badly as we do," he said. "If we had a relationship with Russia, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could work on it together and knock the hell out of ISIS?" He further criticized U.S. military action in Iraq under Obama, saying generals "have not been successful." Trump repeated his assertion the United States should have seized oil from Iraq. "If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and wealth of that oil," Trump contended. Intelligence briefing As a major party candidate, Trump has received confidential intelligence briefings meant to ensure that the next leader is conversant when their term begins. When asked if he was shocked by anything he heard, Trump said Obama, Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry did the opposite of what intelligence experts told them. "I am very good with body language. I could tell, they were not happy our leaders did not follow what they were recommending," he said. Trump said he was qualified to be commander-in-chief because “I built a great company, I’ve been all over the world, I’ve dealt with foreign countries. ... I have great judgment, I know what’s going on.” WATCH: Trump, Clinton on intelligence briefing Iraq war Trump also said he was "totally against the war in Iraq," a claim that is contradicted by his initial support for the 2003 U.S. invasion. Clinton said that her vote for the Iraq war when she was a U.S. senator was a mistake, but that it was important to learn from mistakes. She also pushed back against Trump's repeated assertions during the campaign that he opposed the U.S. attack on Iraq. "He supported it before it happened, he supported it as it was happening, and he is on the record as supporting it after it happened," Clinton said. "I have taken responsibility for my decision. He refuses to take responsibility for his support. That is a judgment issue." Clinton said the most important quality in a president is steadiness and the strength to make hard decisions. "What you want in a president, a commander-in-chief, is someone who listens, who evaluates what is being told to him or her, who is able to sort out the very difficult options being presented, and then makes the decision," she said.Emails, counterterrorism She has faced criticism and investigations for her use of an unsecured private email system while serving as the country's top diplomat during Obama's first term, from 2009 to 2013. Investigators said she was "extremely careless," but criminal charges were not warranted. "It was something that should not have been done," she said, adding that there was no evidence her system was hacked. Clinton called the fight against Islamic State the top counterterrorism goal, advocating using air power and getting more support from Arabs and Kurds fighting IS militants, while also supporting the Iraqi military. She said no U.S. ground combat troops would go to Iraq or Syria. "I view force as a last resort, not a first choice," she said. Trump and Clinton will square off directly in their first presidential debate on September 26, with two more scheduled in October in the weeks before the November 8 election.

NATO officials, representatives from member states and private industry are meeting to discuss how to better defend against cyberattacks, which alliance leaders have called a security challenge that could cause as much harm as conventional military attacks. Ian West, chief of cybersecurity for NATO's Communications and Information Agency, told the conference in the Belgian city of Mons on Thursday that “all of us are facing the same ever-increasing number of incidents, types of incidents and sophistication of incidents.” In July, U.S. President Barack Obama and other NATO leaders agreed to add cyberspace as a domain for alliance operations, along with land, sea and air. They also committed NATO's 28-member countries to enhancing their national cyber defenses “as a matter of priority.”

Those itching for conflict like to portray Putin as a grandmaster. In reality, his country is weak and his strategy is one of desperation

These days it is en vogue in Washington DC to be itching for conflict with Russia. Politicians and pundits alike are outdoing each other for how they can describe the supposed threat Putin now poses to the west. To his credit, Barack Obama seems to be the only politician not playing into the cold war 2.0 hysteria.

In little noticed comments last week, Hillary Clinton suggested that the US should start preparing“military” responses to cyber-attacks allegedly perpetrated by Russia on the DNC and voter registration files. And her campaign has also spent the last few weeks ratcheting up the fear-mongering that the Trump campaign is secretly a Russian plant of some sort.

There is “a long way to go” before Russia and the US can come to a deal on a form of ceasefire in Syria, the US defence secretary, Ash Carter, has said.

The proposed ceasefire would lead to a coordinated US-Russia fight against Islamic State, an effective grounding of the Syrian air force, the resumption of humanitarian aid and an agreement on the identity and location of rebel forces that could still be subject to a military assault.

Prime minister, widely tipped to succeed Islam Karimov in long term, wins backing of parliament for temporary role

Uzbekistan’s parliament has approved the prime minister, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, as acting president, in the clearest sign yet that he could take over long-term following the death of the dictator Islam Karimov.

Mirziyoyev, 58, was given the post after being backed by the senate leader, Nigmatilla Yuldashev, who under the constitution should have become temporary leader ahead of elections.

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Thursday for the United States to “make it a top priority” to hunt down Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, much like it did when it killed al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden in a 2011 raid in Pakistan. “Getting al-Baghdadi will require a focused effort driven at the highest levels,” Clinton told reporters in New York. “But I believe it will send a resounding message that nobody directs or inspires attacks against the United States and gets away with it.” The former secretary of state scorned her opponent, Republican Donald Trump, for his performance late Wednesday at a nationally televised forum at which the two candidates separately answered questions about defense and national security issues. Clinton said that Trump, a real estate mogul seeking his first elected office, "failed yet again" and showed he is “temperamentally unfit” to be the U.S. commander-in-chief, a point she underscored in a separate tweet. 'Trash talking' He “trash-talked American generals,” Clinton said, and called his claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is more of a leader than U.S. President Barack Obama “astonishing” and “unpatriotic and insulting to the people of our country.” “It is scary,” she said, “because it suggests he will let Putin do whatever Putin wants to do, and then make excuses for him.” 'Reduced to rubble' Trump said at the forum that U.S. military generals had been “reduced to rubble” under Obama “to a point where it’s embarrassing to our country” and suggested that he might fire some of them. As a major party candidate, Trump and Clinton have both received confidential intelligence briefings meant to ensure that the next leader is knowledgeable about key foreign policy issues when their term begins. When asked if he was shocked by anything he heard, Trump said Obama, Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry did the opposite of what intelligence experts told them. "I am very good with body language,” Trump said. “I could tell, they were not happy our leaders did not follow what they were recommending.” Clinton rebuked Trump’s assessment about his briefing, saying, “I think what he said was totally inappropriate and undisciplined. I would never comment on any aspect of an intelligence briefing that I received.” Trump, in a comment on his Twitter account, bragged about his performance at the forum, saying, “The reviews and polls from almost everyone of my commander-in-chief presentation were great. Nice!” IS strategy Clinton, seeking to become the first female U.S. president, said she is convening a group of former top national security officials who have served under both Democratic and Republican presidents to map strategy on how to defeat Islamic State jihadists. Trump has also made destruction of Islamic State a key plank of his foreign policy strategy, saying he would get military generals to present him with a plan within 30 days of taking office. Trump and Clinton, now just two months from the November 8 election to replace Obama when he leaves office in January, are set to square off in their first debate September 26, with two others scheduled in October. Clinton is leading Trump by about 3 percentage points in national polls, less than half her advantage a month ago. Her standing with voters has continued to be clouded by ongoing questions about her use of an unsecured private email server while she was the country’s top diplomat from 2009 to 2013. U.S. investigators concluded that her handling of classified material was “extremely careless” but that no criminal charges were warranted.

Russia stages major military drillsTelegraph.co.ukThe Russian Defence Ministry was holding major military drills in the south of the country, involving 12,500 troops, fighter jets, anti-aircraft missiles and other weaponry. The Caucasus 2016 army drills were launched on Monday. At the same time, the ...and more »

Donald Trump's statement that Russian President Vladimir Putin enjoys an 82 percent approval rating among his people wasn't hyperbole. Russia's two main polling agencies consistently give the man in the Kremlin ratings that would be the envy of Trump or his rival in the U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton. The comments came during a televised forum in which NBC host Matt Lauer asked Trump about his previous complimentary remarks on Putin. Trump said Putin's high approval ratings show he is a stronger leader than President Barack Obama. A look at Putin's long record of high ratings: The numbers Trump didn't cite the source for the 82 percent claim, but appeared to be referring to polling by the Levada Center, Russia's only independent public opinion pollster. Levada says the poll was conducted August 26-29, involved personal interviews with 1,600 people in 48 Russian regions, and had a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points. In July, on a Levada poll with a subtly different question about how the respondents regarded Putin, the favorable reaction was 68 percent, the total of three categories ranging from “delight” to “can't say anything bad about him.” That survey also had 1,600 respondents. Putin's ratings have been consistently strong during his three terms as president. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released in December 2014 found his approval rating among Russians at 81 percent. That poll was based on 2,008 in-person interviews and had a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. The state-controlled pollster VTsIOM has found that in an open-ended question, between 52 and 55 percent of Russians name Putin as a person they can trust. But perhaps just as importantly, only 4 to 5 percent name him as someone they distrust. Surveys from both VTsIOM and Levada show high levels of trust in Putin, in sharp contrast to the wide-ranging antipathy Americans express for both Trump and Clinton. How he does it Russia's economy is staggering - the ruble is worth half of what it was three years ago - corruption is endemic and the country's south endures a persistent insurgency. For some leaders such troubles could be fatal, but Putin has glided over them with a combination of steely control and personal aplomb. Under Putin, all major television channels came under state control and their reports - the main source of news for much of the country - either eschew criticism of the president or outright laud him. Although Putin now rarely engages in the televised stunts of his early years as president, such as bare-chested horse-riding or flying a motorized glider, he is never shown in the untoward moments that can befall anyone. Even the potential scandal of divorcing his wife was handled adroitly; Putin made the announcement during a TV interview in an anteroom between acts at a ballet. He also plays the national-pride card often. After the West announced sanctions against Russia over its involvement with armed separatists in Ukraine, Putin spun the restrictions as an opportunity for Russia to develop its domestic production. He rarely misses an opportunity to appeal to Russians' ingrained sense of being misunderstood and under chronic threat from the outside. How it plays abroad While Trump's praise of Putin may disturb many Americans, it could hearten others tired of years of tensions with Russia. Putin has leveraged his popularity into good relations with Hungary's autocratic and nationalist president Viktor Orban, and Russia also is building its brand by cultivating far-right parties elsewhere in Europe. In addition, Putin's popularity is a staple of Russia's growing media presence abroad - through the well-watched RT satellite TV channel and the multilingual Sputnik news website. While Putin has called Trump “bright” and welcomed the prospect of better relations with Washington, the Kremlin seems determined not to overplay its hand on the issue. Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, declined to comment directly on Trump's accolade Thursday.

WASHINGTON—Top Obama administration officials sent warnings to Russia on Wednesday over that country’s alleged hacks into Democratic Party computer files, but one of the suspected hackers told The Wall Street Journal his alleged Russia ties are “nonsense,” while saying more records would be leaked as soon as next week.

What began as a series of cyberattacks has evolved into an international dispute with political, diplomatic, and security implications. U.S. law-enforcement, homeland-security and intelligence officials working to gauge the severity of the breaches and prevent anyone from tampering with the voting systems for November’s elections.

Computer breaches are common, but the apparently targeted leaks of politically oriented material at a time when it could affect a U.S. election is unprecedented. Previous large-scale breaches have often had economic motives, but officials worry that this time the goal is tampering with the credibility of America’s elections, escalating the stakes.

Russia should join NATO: the benefits for the Global Security are enormous

To reformulate Lord Ismay's phrase: 1) Take Russia in, 2) Continue keeping Germany down, 3) Assert and exercise the US leadership position within the NATO as a unifying and directing force and vector.

"Ловец Человеков"

Connected? The halo is there. And the Book is there. And the disciples are there. But where is the Light of Understanding, in this big curved dark tunnel of a vision? Where is the big red dot? Where is the new beginning?

Russia and US Presidential Elections of 2016 - Google News

Russia international behavior - Google News

RUSSIA and THE WEST

russia ukraine - Google News

West, Russia, Putin

US - Russia relations - Google News

Hillary Clinton and rock group Pussy Riot

"Great to meet the strong & brave young women from #PussyRiot, who refuse to let their voices be silenced in #Russia. 1:09 PM - 4 Apr 2014" - Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton tweeted a picture Friday of her posing with members of the anti-Vladimir Putin punk rock group Pussy Riot. Clinton met with the women during the "Women in the World Summit" in New York. The group has emerged as chief opponents of Putin, and three members were jailed in 2012 after an anti-Putin performance at a church. The tweet has been re-tweeted almost 10,000 times.